What it really means to have a Managed Forest
October 24, 2010
A couple of weeks ago I noticed something had broken a number of the white pines we planted just before the Plowing Match back in 2007. I suspected something had knocked them over, but when I examined another tree that looked sickly, it tipped over at my barest touch, severed neatly across the trunk about half-way up. With lots of sap around the wound and evidence of insect activity, I figured some sort of weevil had hit, so because these trees are part of a managed forest under the MFTIP plan, I dashed off an email to Martin Streit, Leeds Stewardship Co-ordinator, and asked for help.
Resource technician Donna O’Connor responded to my plea, combining the visit with a survival assessment of the new seedlings planted last spring as part of the Trees Ontario program. She listened to my theory that somehow the western pine weevil had made its way east and vectored in on my trees, then suggested that this looked more like white pine blister rust, a common affliction in white pine stands in Eastern Ontario. It’s a fungus which settles in on the trunk of a pine and causes a series of little holes to appear in the bark. The holes, of course, fill with sap. Secondary insect infestations likely account for the boring through the trunk.
While there’s no real treatment for blister rust, it’s not a new problem and the stand will generally survive it. Donna will definitely report the problem to Martin for further investigation, though.
Then she moved over a couple of rows to the new seedlings the crew planted this spring. I’d kept them mowed quite carefully all summer, so they looked pretty good. She was pleased with the survival rate, which she placed at 98% in the first field she examined. It seems that pine seedlings in good soil are pretty resilient: until I bought a narrow tractor and mower, I had stubbornly tried to mow the plantation with my 5 foot Rhino. This produced several rows of seedlings just as lively as the others, but several inches shorter (oops!).
This summer the Roundup ran out long before the grass quit for the season, so I had to mow the new trees out of overwhelming vegetation a couple of times. By this time of year, though, the 5000 young pine, tamarac and hardwoods were clearly winning on the north side of the property.
Donna applied the same survey method to the five-acre walnut/pine patch on the south face of the drumlin. The survival rate for the white pine seedlings there was considerably lower, almost entirely due to my mowing habits. A walnut field must be mowed both down and across. I avoided all the pine seedlings I could with the narrow mower on the cross cuts, but the walnuts came first. To my credit, Donna admitted that the pines still standing are in excellent health. “Mind you, if you couldn’t grow trees with the climate this summer, you can’t grow trees.”
She checked the progress of the butternuts. The hundred or so viable trees from the 2006 stand are doing very well, with good growth on the trunks. Of the thirty blight-resistant stems I planted three years ago, all but two remain healthy but most are in serious need of pruning. “These butternut have excessive lateral bud growth due to twig borer attacks on the branch leaders, Rod. Butternut don’t normally have the kind of sprouting that yours are showing.”
Because these are test trees Donna suggested I contact the Butternut Lady, Rose Fleguel, for further instructions about a pruning regimen for these valuable young trees.
Back in the woodlot Donna wanted to see the cherry and red oak we planted four years ago to see how they are doing in the clearings we created for them within the canopy. Red oaks are easy to find at this time of year because they retain their dark red leaves. Most of the oaks are hanging on, but could use more sunlight, so she suggested cutting some of the tall ironwood and basswood to allow more light into the two cleared areas. The young maples in that area are fine trees and we should be able to work around them.
Donna found a group of young cherry which have grown much taller than the others. She used them to illustrate how the seedlings will grow if they get the correct amount of sunlight. Some of the little bushy ones will either need more sunlight or perhaps relocation to the front lawn. “They grow outward looking for the bits of light instead of upward. We use the term ‘umbrellaing’.”
A quick lesson on pruning the double-stems of some new spruce seedlings, and away she went to meet with another landowner. These visits from Donna O’Connor and Martin Streit give me much of the support I need to look after the property, and to my mind they are the biggest advantage of the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program.
The Focus Group
July 5, 2010
Scott Davis sent me an email a couple of months ago asking me to a meeting in Almonte which had potential to be interesting. Scott’s with the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, a non-governmental organization which works as a go-between among industry, government, and woodlot owners.
Elizabeth Holmes is a PhD candidate at the University of Guelph as well as a member of the Model Forest staff. Her research concerns woodlot owners and what motivates them. This meeting of the first focus group for Elizabeth’s project involved a dozen individuals Scott rounded up. We would meet for a day while Elizabeth and Melanie took copious notes on the issues we raised in response to general questions about the provision of ecological goods and services through woodlot ownership.
Turns out the meeting was at the Union Hall in Tatlock. Many years ago two townships combined their efforts to build the hall: hence the name. It was a pleasant drive up through a well-treed landscape.
By the time the introductions were complete I realized that this would be a very informative discussion. The people in the room had unique perspectives and lots to say. The only thing they held in common (apart from availability on a week day) was a deep attachment the land they tend.
A few inherited their land. Some bought a hunting preserve and discovered its year-long appeal. Families discovered that the woodlot met their needs better than a cottage or golf course. Fleeing city concrete figured prominently in the introductions. Everyone plants trees. Maple syrup, of course, was mentioned often. Most were eager to recount their stewardship activities over the last few years or generations.
The first common concern to emerge had to do with passing our life’s work on to the next generation. Government recognizes the value of privately-held forest tracts by reducing the property taxes on managed properties. Tax breaks are also available to tree farms, though the same issue comes up: at some point the woodlot must begin to pay for itself. Otherwise the landowner or the family members who follow will be unable to keep it.
Elizabeth leaped in with the purpose of this first focus group, to define the terms of the dialogue which will emerge in the next few years between the public, government, and the land owner.
She explained that in Costa Rica, Bolivia, England, the United States and Australia, government or charitable organizations have launched programs to pay landholders for ecological goods and services. At least three similar programs are in early days in Canada.
These ecological benefits (I’m reluctant to use the acronym) are much easier to understand in a county like Bolivia where burning the forest for livestock grazing is a major environmental problem. A beehive (cost: $3.00) can protect ten hectares for a year. In-kind payments are more acceptable to landholders than cash, because with cash comes the perception of lost control of one’s land.
New York City discovered it was cheaper and easier to pay the farmers upsteam to improve the quality of the rivers than to build a new water treatment plant.
The Australian government has little trouble politically with the funding of water improvement programs, but how about in Canada? With so much of it around us, it’s hard to imagine paying for water (unless it’s in a ½ litre bottle). In Canada most ecological spending is based on guilt and goes to organizations. None of it currently gets to the provider of many of the goods and services, the farmer or woodlot owner.
Elizabeth’s study is to identify the issues and begin the dialogue for the move to recognizing and rewarding landowners and farmers for the critical role they play as environmental stewards.
Elizabeth Holmes:
The Eastern Ontario Model Forest is exploring ways to recognize the contributions that farmers and landowners make in providing ecological goods and services. Over the next year we will host a series of focus group sessions with you to identify how best to develop a workable EG&S program framework for eastern Ontario.
Here are a few questions we’ll explore with you in focus groups:
1. How might the responsibilities and costs for providing and safeguarding EG&S be shared among institutions, taxpayers, consumers and landowners?
2. What constitutes going “the extra step” towards providing EG&S, and how can that be translated into payment?
3. What types of incentive or forms of recognition are most valued by landowners?
4. What best EG&S practices and stewardship programs might we use as a base?
5. How do we generate and sustain funding in support of incentives?
6. Given the sheer complexity of ecosystems, how do we measure or verify that environmental goods and services have been provided or safeguarded?
We are very interested in the views of woodlot owners and farmers in eastern Ontario. If you’d like to participate in a focus group session, please contact Elizabeth Holmes at eholmes@eomf.on.ca or (613) 258-8415.
the Walnut Diary 